Hello, Digitaltoast! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! —Tom Morris (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you imply that I am not an experienced editor. It is clear to me that the article I suggested should be deleted was created by a cabal or fan club of the person involved, and was in effect breaking the rules of WP:BLOG and WP:NOTNEWS. It's a scandal that this article has been allowed to remain because of a fixed process. I will try to appeal this injustice if I can. doktorbwordsdeeds 00:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response I am obviously very disappointed by this decision. The assertion that I did not read the article is highly misleading, not to mention offensive. I have been a Wikipedia editor for many, many years, and have followed the rules and regulations throughout these years. To suggest that I did not follow the regulations is complete bunkum. Using the evidence present in the article, I made a choice based on what I thought was a fairly obvious case - it STILL breaks our rules on blogs, recentism, notability, and bias. The "keep" votes are from people who have an immense level of conflict of interest, and therefore skew the vote something rotten. I am very disappointed that this entire episode has been carried out at my expense, rather than at the article itself. This response will be copied to as many concerned editors in this matter. doktorbwordsdeeds 18:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
